Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

See the CiteScore metrics in each tab located here for an example. Note that journals apply to Scopus et al to be included in their indices and may pay fees for continued indexing. JoelleJay (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Since we don't treat academic journals as "products" or "organizations", SIRS doesn't apply, so the answer doesn't really matter. But:

• The metrics are primary. (Secondary would sound like "The CiteScore for this journal is higher than the CiteScore for that journal" or "The CiteScore for this journal has mostly been going up over the last five years".)
• Scopus is treated as an independent source.
• Whether it's "significant coverage" depends on how much of an encyclopedia article you could write from it. If you could write a few paragraphs (say, 10 good sentences) of encyclopedic content, then it's definitely SIGCOV. If you could only fill in one blank in an infobox, or write a single sentence, then it's definitely not SIGCOV. NB that
  WP:NBASIC
  explicitly authorizes combining sources to create SIGCOV (effectively saying that you can have 5 sources ✖️ 2 sentences each = 10 sentences and SIGCOV, rather than SIRS requiring each source to produce 10 sentences by itself [using my 10 sentences example, which is not mandatory policy]).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

We should treat journals as commercial products. They cost. They are advertised. They benefit from having a Wikipedia article.

Metrics are primary, and thus always fail SIRS#4. I’m not sure I understand “SIRS coverage of journals”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Of course journals are businesses, why wouldn't they be?
• Yes, the metrics are primary, so that should exclude them from being used as SIGCOV.
• How is a business that a journal applies to to receive services an independent source? Scopus profits off of how big a corpus its catalogue contains, the journal profits off of being searchable within a somewhat-selective database and getting metrics generated on it.
• Information existing verifiably != encyclopedic information. Being able to generate sentences out of data points does not make those data points SIGCOV. Millions objects have thousands of verifiable parameters from which one could construct thousands of sentences. Wikipedia should never be the first to describe an object as having particular parameters in prose.
• NBASIC does not apply to non-people, so that's irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  1. Publications are not businesses. Elsevier is a business; Annals of Epidemiology is not. See also: Gannett is a business that owns the USA Today newspaper; Dow Jones & Company is a business that publishes The Wall Street Journal. You might be able to justify a claim that periodicals are products, and thus should fall under this guideline and be treated like iPhones, but that has not historically been accepted by the community.
  2. Historiography (e.g., primary vs secondary) is not the same as how much information is in the source (=SIGCOV). What you wrote means "The metrics are primary, so that should exclude them from containing a lot of information". I assume that you meant "The metrics are primary, so that should exclude them from being used to claim that there should be a separate, stand-alone article on Wikipedia."
  3. How is a newspaper that receives press releases an independent source? But you may note that I did not say that Scopus is objectively an entirely independent source with no possible relationship or aligned interests; I said that it's treated as one. If I were going to oppose the metrics approach to journal notability, I would not waste time trying to convince editors that Scopus is non-independent, because I don't think it will work.
  4. You will note that I specified "how much of an encyclopedia article you could write from" a source, and not "how much information verifiably exists". Non-encyclopedic information can be ignored when determining SIGCOV. Being able to generate sentences out of data points makes the source (NB: not "those data points") have SIGCOV if and only if (a) those sentences would be appropriate to include in an encyclopedia article and (b) you could write a lot of sentences from them.
     • You will recall that I wrote User:WhatamIdoing/Database article for you. That transformed a single source into 22 individually cited statements. That shows the source has SIGCOV, even though the source came in the form of "data points" instead of "paragraphs".
     • By contrast, even if you have an entire book of prose, if you can't even get two sentences that are appropriate for an encyclopedia article(!) out of that prose, then that book does not contain SIGCOV.
  5. NBASIC shows that a principle you disagree with has been established in a widely accepted guideline. The regular editors at this guideline have historically resisted that approach for businesses, but publications aren't businesses, and other guidelines might well prefer the approach taken by NBASIC to the rather extreme approach taken by SIRS.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Of course journals are businesses/business products...?
  • "Being used as SIGCOV" obviously means "being used in the context the term "SIGCOV" is always used".
  • Newspapers are not reporting metrics on the press releases they receive, but the relationship between a newspaper and a press release is not independent either. Scopus reports novel metrics only on the journals it admits into its catalogue. This is equivalent to an organization reporting the demographics of its members and ranking them or whatever to boost its own prestige and the desirability of membership.
  • And how does one determine which info is "encyclopedic" when you are presented with a database entry containing potentially thousands of bits of uncontextualized information? How can we assess the relative importance of any piece of data, or how it should be introduced, or what its relevance is to any other piece of data on the topic, or how it should be characterized with regard to any other topic? You could write exactly the same "paragraphs" directly from the original raw research data whence they were published. And yet, we require all articles be based on secondary sources that have actually analyzed the data and published an interpretation of it in their own words, so clearly an article derived from primary paper data--whether accessed through the paper or from a database that automatically extracts and hosts the data--is not acceptable.
  • And NBASIC also shows that only one out of 12 SNGs and the GNG has chosen to carve out an explicit exception permitting additive coverage. I don't know how many AfDs you've been, especially ones in this decade, but the "extreme approach" of insisting each contributory source meets all of secondary, independent, SIGCOV, and reliable is the norm even for biographies. JoelleJay (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

    1. A publication may be a product, but it is not a business. Publications have content and pages; businesses have employees and (hopefully) profits. Books are also products, and yet they are covered by the Wikipedia:Notability (books) guideline. It is possible that the community will consider a periodical to be more closely related to a book than to a business.
    2. The context in which SIGCOV is normally used has nothing to do with whether the source is primary (except by you).
    3. Scopus reports novel (and therefore primary) metrics on whichever journals it chooses to report them on. This is equivalent to an organization reporting the demographics of whichever people it chooses to report on, not its members.
    4. One writes an encyclopedia article, which means providing certain basic information whenever it is verifiable. That basic information might mean symptoms, causes, and treatments for a disease, or location and industry for a business, or profession and time for a person, but even inexperienced editors generally know what they need to put in articles. After all, even the worst of the "database only" articles tend to say something like "Alice Athlete was a Ruritanian runner who competed in the 1912 Olympics" instead of writing something like "Alice Athlete once competed while it was raining", and {{
       db-nocontext
       }} deletions are pretty rare.
    5. NBASIC shows that one of 12 SNGs, covering the biggest area of any SNG, has explicitly adopted this. Additionally, Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (the second of three SNGs involving people) incorporates NBASIC by reference. This guideline is the only one that says the NBASIC standard cannot be used; none of the others speak to it in either direction. That means that two of the SNGs support NBASIC's approach, and this SNG is the only one that rejects the view. Thus, "extreme".

    WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe, I'm not sure I understand what you don't understand? I am asking whether the cataloguing provided by indexing services counts as secondary, independent, reliable SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I muddled yours and WAID’s comments together.

I don’t understand how one could ask whether a data processor such as SCOPUS can provide SIRS coverage. It can’t, because SCOPUS output is a primary source and auto-fails SIRS#4.

Do you think you can classify SCOPUS output as a secondary source?

Also, why is this being asked here? There is an NJOURNALS discussion going on elsewhere. My position is that nearly all journals, those not passing WP:SIRS, should all be merged to a page with a table of all reputable academic journals. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

We (specifically Wikipedia editors) might need the articles on disreputable journals more, though. The article on Medical Hypotheses was very useful to me when I was an inexperienced editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not an article, but there is

WP:NPERIODICAL not being adopted as PAG yet). Alpha3031 (t • c

) 13:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

A catalogue will not be secondary SIGCOV, and if someone thinks it does, they are arguing that it is more than a catalogue. A catalogue of all journals could be expanded into a review of all journals, but they review will require an author (ignore AI text generation for now). SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

JoelleJay, you wrote: "Note that journals apply to Scopus et al to be included in their indices and may pay fees for continued indexing." What source(s) say that journals pay for continued indexing services, or for indexing services in the first place? As far as I know, journals do not pay for indexing services. They do apply to be listed. This may be declined or not depending on their quality, or whatever other metrics are employed. I may be wrong about not paying to be indexed, but please provide the sources from which you derive your information. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"Note that journals apply to Scopus et al to be included in their indices and may pay fees for continued indexing". This is utterly false save perhaps for predatory indices. And inclusion in certain databases certainly counts as

WP:N) because those databases (and the people working for them) produce analysis of those journals. Listing in a database like INSPIRE-HEP isn't sigcov, because that one doesn't produce any analysis. But Journal Citation Reports

does.

"Metrics are primary". If Scopus says a journal is ranked 23 out of 247, that analysis is

WP:SECONDARY

, because journals aren't making that analysis themselves.

Additional, a different aspect is the selectivity of a database. JCR and Scopus are the premier bibliographic database, and getting included in them is hard. These are by no means perfect, in that which journal to including are the result of decisions made by humans, and humans err. But ultimately, inclusion in those databases is no different than a company being listed on the

b

} 11:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

“ranked 23 out of 247” is primary not secondary. It is a fact without meaning. It is a result of a formula, not the result of analysis. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a fact who's meaning is patently obvious, and is

b

} 13:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Reviewed. Facts are primary. There is no meaning in that fact as stated, the patently obvious is coming from you, not the text. There is no secondary source content, comment analysis contextualisation transformation etc, in a fact. A database report is a primary source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that rankings are always primary. "X is better than Y" is a type of analysis, and analysis is usually secondary. Statements like "ranked 23 out of 247" is a form of "X is better than Y". However, Scopus's original publication of the results of their own calculation is a primary source under Wikipedia's system.

I also don't agree that facts are always primary. It is a fact that premature babies' lives can be saved by giving corticosteroids to their mothers before birth. This fact is the result of transforming multiple primary sources into a single fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

“X is better than Y” is not a fact, but an opinion.

"ranked 23 out of 247" is not a form of "X is better than Y". The second weaves nonfactual information in.

”Can be” facts are pushing out the boundaries of “fact”. I don’t think it is a correct use of the word fact. A fact that is subject to a conditional clause is certainly not a simple fact, and I don’t think you are advancing clarity with this line of argument. If you transform multiple facts into a single fact, either that transformation is a reduction not worthy to be called transformation, or your so called single fact is convoluted, not singular, and insisting it is a fact is not useful for anyone.

Mathematical functions do not transform primary data into secondary data, they just create more primary data. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The article we have on Meta-analysis says that a meta-analysis is a mathematical transformation of primary sources, and the result is a secondary source (with two sources cited for that fact). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

No issue there. An “analysis”, meta or otherwise, is not a “mathematical function”. In mathematics, a transformation can be a function, and in many examples is a function but it is a bigword used to mean something more than a function. Just read the article you linked, the definition of “meta-analysis”, the two source quotes you mention: (1) ” Some examples of secondary sources are (1) books and textbooks in which the author describes and summarizes past research, (2) review articles or meta-analyses...”, and (2) The most common types of secondary sources found in academic journals are literature reviews and meta-analyses. These are clearly describing information transformation fitting the historiographical definition of secondary source and are not describing a mathematical function.

While scientists use a different definition of “primary”, they do not define a science meaning for “secondary”, and do seem to make use of good definitions that seem firmly sourced to the historiographical defintion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

But ultimately, inclusion in those databases is no different than a company being listed on the

reliable independent source

.

@

NHL

or any other pro sport (and therefore being in its database) was deprecated by global consensus as a criterion that even presumes SIGCOV exists. All sportspeople have always been required to meet GNG regardless of meeting a sport-specific guideline (SSG), but the NSPORT2022 RfC went further and removed all direct presumptions of GNG from meeting any SSG and replaced it with a presumption that SIGCOV exists; removed all criteria that were merely participation-based (so playing in the NHL etc.) because those criteria were found to be poor predictors of GNG; and instituted a requirement that, in addition to the NEXIST expectation of GNG, all sportsperson articles must actively cite a secondary independent reliable SIGCOV source, which explicitly excludes databases.

NASTRO is closer to what you might be thinking of, but it has similarly rejected inclusion in databases as establishing notability (Being listed in a database does not make an object notable); rather inclusion in highly selective catalogues presumes the subject is notable, but to actually demonstrate notability the requirement is: Coverage must be specific and substantial: notability is not ensured just because an object is listed in a

scientific paper or included in a large-scale astronomical survey

. To establish notability, the astronomical object must have significant commentary in reliable sources, such as being one of the primary targets of a study with in-depth discussion (beyond discovery and basic parameters).

With citation indices and other autogenerated metrics, a journal's properties just exist in a dynamic database where some scripts automatically update and evaluate it and spit out metrics and rankings with no human involvement. Alexa page rankings and Google Trends do exactly these kinds of operations and they are most certainly not considered secondary coverage of the items they evaluate. That is not people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. No person is publishing their written analysis/discussion of the journal specifically and directly. JoelleJay (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, researchers perform their own manipulations/analyses on raw data from independent datasets all the time, that doesn't transform the results of research with those data into a secondary source on whatever the (zeroth) data came from, even when the results are published in prose. JoelleJay (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

none of those items contributes to notability in your opinion. Mine is different. that doesn't transform the results of research with those data into a secondary source on whatever the (zeroth) data came from indeed, those were always secondary sources. Primary, secondary, and tertiary are terms that denote who wrote something with respect to the subject. Scopus is the primary source to the claim Scopus ranked journal X out of Y in category Z. But it is a secondary source in terms of what influence a journal has, because Scopus is independent of the journals. This is no different than the Siskel and Ebert being a primary source for the opinion that Siskel and Ebert ranked a movie two thumbs up, but is a secondary source about whether a movie was worth watching or not because Siskel and Ebert are independant of the movie.

b

} 16:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

...How do those items contribute to notability if they are explicitly excluded from contributing to notability by the relevant PAGs??? Just...what?!

And no, a primary research paper is not a secondary source on the results of experiments within it. An SNP's association p-value from one GWAS of public genomic data would not be a MEDRS-compliant secondary source for the statement that that allele is associated with some specific risk.

Siskel and Ebert's bare ranking of two thumbs up is not a notability criterion nor is it SIGCOV, but sure, it's secondary.

In contrast, a movie database that randomly generates intersectional criteria and then publishes a ranked list of the qualifying movies by box office score is not secondary coverage of a movie. Tabulated results of a database query are not secondary coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A primary (science meaning) research paper can be a secondary source (historiographical meaning) for the experiments within in, albeit in a contrived scenario, and as a non-independent source, it is not considered a good secondary source for many purposes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

But it is a secondary source in terms of what influence a journal has, because Scopus is independent of the journal

No, that is not why. Independent doesn’t make secondary. I suspect Headbomb is influenced by the science meaning of “primary”, which is different and much more restrictive than the definition in historiography. SCOPUS may be dealing heavily with science, but Wikipedia is not science and doesn’t and should use the science definitions of word. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It's difficult to construct a one-size-fits-all-fields definition, and I think Wikipedia is currently using a definition that lands somewhere between history and science, but no matter which definition you use,

Wikipedia:Independent does not mean secondary. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 21:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

“Difficult” means a bit of effort is needed, not that one should give up. Science and historiography have different definitions of “primary source”. Wikipedia is not science. Encyclopedias are not science. Encyclopedias are historiography. Use the definitions from historiography. As with my previous post on this page, it is easier with “secondary source”, because that is not a term used in science. It is also not used in journalism, if not confused with “second-hand source”.

I think it should be easily agreed that “independent does not make secondary”, not according to any good definition of “secondary source”. But I note, an independent contribution to the data analysis (or data “processing” I might prefer to write) does mean that this newly processed data does not fit the science definition of “primary source”.

My apologies if this reads as tediously tangential, but I believe the correct use of the term

WP:SIRS analysis. SmokeyJoe (talk

) 22:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

In terms of difficulty, I was thinking of the legal definition. Given that law refuses to admit that there is such a thing as a tertiary source, it may be beyond merely "difficult" to develop a definition that works for both history and law. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think the definitions can be reconciled. They are different, similar in ways, but different. And it is not for Wikipedia to redefine English. “Notable” was a mistake, forever to be a barrier for newcomers.

Given that there are different definitions, in order to facilitate communication, the thing to do is to agree to use the common definitions. For Wikipedia backroom purposes, I submit that the historiographical definitions are the obvious choice, and already made long ago. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any sort of notability criteria for products, product lines, brands, services etc other than "that info should probably be merged to another article". So how are any product articles like films and commercial vehicles getting articles in the first place because I recently wrote an article on a product line that, while it seems niche, actually had a few dedicated articles from well known publications written about it. When I want to write an article about a new product, what guideline would I use,

Films are excluded from NCORP because they fall under

WP:PRODUCTREV about product reviews. Does that help? S0091 (talk

) 19:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Products need to meet NCORP? Nothing *needs* to meet a SNG so thats a bold statement. The GNG route is always available and never precluded by a SNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Then I suggest you propose deprecating NCORP because if GNG is the reigning guideline then NCORP is not needed. At this time though generally products fall under NCORP. S0091 (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Neither is reigning over the other, both are paths to notability. A topic which fails NCORP can still be notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

NCORP is not a path to notability, it's a barrier to notability. —Alalch E. 16:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that currently available commercial products, brands, services should fall under NCORP and that NCORP is a stricter set of criteria and supersedes GNG. Some SNGs are less strict than GNG: articles about professors can be shown to be notable under NPROF even when they don't meet GNG. Valereee (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

A SNG can't supersede GNG. Its an "or" situation, a topic can either pass GNG *or* or one of the SNG. It doesn't need to pass both (also note that passing either does not actually mean that its notable, consensus can still be that a particular topic which passes GNG or one of the SNG isn't notable). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said earlier, NCORP just defines what type of coverage counts toward GNG for businesses. An org can't "meet GNG" if it doesn't meet NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

About A SNG can't supersede GNG: That's one POV, but the community hasn't settled this.

JoelleJay, I'm afraid that your statement An org can't "meet GNG" if it doesn't meet NCORP is not true, at least in theory. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations has listed the GNG as an optional alternative to this SNG for more than 10 years, and several subsections, such as schools, repeat that organizations can comply with this guideline or the GNG or both. It wouldn't make sense to say you can comply with this guideline or the GNG (emphasis in the original) and then say that parts of this guideline applies even if you're following a different one.

We could, naturally, propose removing this "or the GNG" approach. Perhaps we should. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

As someone who took an intense interest in the appearance and maturation of the notability guidelines, pseudo-policy by virtue of direct reference from

WP:NOTPROMOTION

, and still could.

However, at a higher level again, questions of seniority evaporate with the point that all notability guidelines, when push comes to shove, are mere predictors of what will be consensus at AfD. DRV will not entertain a protest that a consensus to delete misread a line of a notability guideline. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• I think it is totally ridiculous that products or services are being shoehorned under organizations or corporations. A product or a service is not an organization or a corporation. It is actually an absurd notion that notability fanatics have shoehorned in just to have more control and more strict standards over more articles. They are very small clauses that take up maybe 3 sentences at the most in three different paragraphs. (That is being generous). So, there isn't a lot of guidance devoted to it. The only purpose it serves was an insertion in a few places to exert control over a higher number of articles. Period. I have not looked, but I bet my dollars to your donuts there wasn't a large amount of broad community discussion about it. Huggums537 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Products have been handled since before you and I started editing, and I believe they were added because of the problem of Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. The story goes something like this:

  • We decide (based on our personal opinions, and without reference to the fact that these are among the most-read pages in all of Wikipedia) that we have too many articles about commercial businesses, so we raise the requirements for them.
  • No problem! say marketing departments all over the world. We'll write an article about the product, and just happen to describe the company at the end.
  • We raise the requirements for products.
  • No problem! say the marketing departments. We'll write an article about the CEO, and just happen to describe the company in it.

  This guideline was able to solve the first coatracking problem by setting the same standard for products as for orgs, but we couldn't solve the CEO problem. I don't think this guideline really wants to mess with BLPs and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  WP:BLP puts no emphasis on independent sourcing, and puts a lot of emphasis on privacy. If WP:CORP were to better tie CEOs to the standards applied to their companies, I don’t think there would be any friction with WP:BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  No, the friction would be with

  WP:NPEOPLE, and that might be a solvable problem. But we'd have to reach the point at which we want to do this, and that has not happened. WhatamIdoing (talk

  ) 00:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Drawing a line of authority from

  WP:NOTPROMOTION, and turning the question to “are the sources promotional sources?”, it does make sense that for profit companies, their products, services, founders and CEOs, should all be held similarly to the highest standard of sourcing. It doesn’t matter whether it is the restaurant, the meal, the speed of takeaway service, the brilliance of the owner, or the skill of the chef, Wikipedia should resist hosting promotion. SmokeyJoe (talk

  ) 09:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  We don't currently make a distinction between for-profit companies/organizations and other companies companies/organizations writ large, we only exclude a small subset of them "non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams." If thats what you want to do we will need to overhaul the whole scheme. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  There are alternative guidelines within NCORP which includes non-profits, see

  WP:NONPROFIT. S0091 (talk

  ) 14:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  And where does it say that promotion isn't an issue with them? Is there some research I'm not aware of which suggests that for-profit companies engage in more promotion than other companies? Normally the organizations which promote themselves the most ardently are those which rely on donations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Websites don't have to meet NCORP (as a service) because they can meet NWEB, but doughnuts do, because there is no NDOUGHNUT, and NCORP says that products need to be subjected to its criteria. It depends on whether the product/service has a specifically pertinent SNG. The specificity is the escape route toward notability per the lex specialis doctrine.—Alalch E. 16:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  @

  Alalch E.: Lex specialis is recognized by the community as a governing principle? That is news to me because generally we avoid that sort of legal wrangling, can you point to the consensus? Horse Eye's Back (talk

  ) 16:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's just common sense. Consider a commercial music album. Is this a product? Most definitely. Does it have to meet NCORP? Obviously not. —Alalch E. 16:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  So its not recognized by the community? Are you arguing for WP:IAR based on "common sense?" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's practiced. See how (the nonexistent) NFOOD was tendered as a route to escape NCORP for a food product in this AfD. The keep side argued that there is something special about the topic as a class, that it should be treated differently as a class, and that the general provisions of NCORP should not apply (not that they do not apply). This was lex specialis at work.—Alalch E. 16:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  It does not appear to be lex specialis at work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  The problem I see with it is that just as with the commercial music album since it is a product the possibility exists for it to be argued that it falls under NCORP when it should fall under NMUSIC. This issue is magnified by the fact that almost anything could arguably be a service or a product even if it should fall under something else. E.g., something or someone that has to do with sports could be said to be a "product or service" of entertainment or recreation. Huggums537 (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  It would help if the lex specialis doctrine should be codified in PAG/WP:N. Lex specialis is such pure inescapable logic present in both common and civil law, necessary to resolve internal conflict of norms, that it shouldn't be characterized as legal wrangling. It provably works on a daily basis. We don't have to use Latin of course. —Alalch E. 16:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Its actually only present in certain legal contexts, its neither inescapable or universal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with that. It's present in daily life, in everyday relationships, and surpasses legal contexts. It's just a name for something that's already intuitively practiced.—Alalch E. 16:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  The legal concept is not universal, thats not something you can disagree with. There are many legal systems which do not recognize that doctrine and there are lot of other ways to live your life. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed to disagree. —Alalch E. 16:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Certainly, if I may explain my own familiarity with the term its because it became the dominant doctrine in international nuclear weapons law in 1996 and has only within the last few years fallen out of favor. That to me says one thing very clearly: a doctrine which comes in and out of fashion isn't universal and it isn't pure inescapable logic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  @

  WP:PGCONFLICT section, which talks about WP:MEDRS not really conflicting with WP:RS. WhatamIdoing (talk

  ) 00:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

As promotional articles for non-profits have come shoulder to shoulder, I propose we reduce the distinction between non profits and commercial organization. The first criteria for NONPROFIT gives unfair advantages to those whose name includes the terms global, national, world, international and such. With the advances in remote work technology made during the pandemic, it's now much easier for administrative type organizations to clear "national or international scale work" requirement. I am not exactly sure how to implement it just yet but the criteria for inclusion should not be made any more lenient than GNG. Graywalls (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Graywalls, could you explain how that section gives any advantages to those whose name includes the terms global, national, world, international and such? AFAICT it does not mention anything at all about the names of the organizations, and it cautions against editors believing dubious claims from small organizations to be international. I would think that "WhatamIdoing's International Organization" (location: my kitchen table) would be rejected, and that "Locals Only Organization", with regular activities in dozens of countries, would be accepted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The first item "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale." So whenever something says "National Coalition of... " "International Alliance..." basically makes it pass right through the first criterion and they claim their work is national or international, one significant coverage in local newspaper and one significant coverage in subject specific book/magazine and they end up passing notability under this SNG making it quite challenging to successfully AfD those that would not pass NCORP if it wasn't for "non profit" exception. Graywalls (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"If the scope of their activities is national or international" does not mean "If their name contains the words national or international". The last bullet point in that section adds: Caveat – Be cautious of claims that small organizations are national or international in scale.

If your concern is that the rules say orgs that are actually international in scope are usually notable, but you find someone at AFD saying something like "The org's name contains the word international, so they're automatically notable", then I don't think that changing the guideline is going to solve your problem.

Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, and anyone who is making that kind of statement obviously hasn't read the guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 23:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

These days, administrative or oversight type organizations that do their activities online, or ship items by the mail and it serves in multiple states or countries, it could superficially pass the first criteria. Perhaps, something to say "scope of their work is international or national have received national or international coverage" would be an idea for tightening up the requirements. Graywalls (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

These criteria (which were written c. 2007) may be out of date. At the time, I suspect that editors were thinking "International Red Cross" (or other boots-on-the-ground organizations), rather than virtual or drop-shipping groups (e.g., "Internet Forum for Families with <rare disease>"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone claiming there is any such thing as automatic notability at an AfD has a competence issue which can't be resolved by changing the guideline because they never read the guideline in the first place. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the following sentence because it is illogical:

• For example, a review of a local harvest festival in a local newspaper or a book review in a newsletter by a city's library would not qualify as significant coverage.

First, CORPDEPTH is IMO the best definition of SIGCOV we have in any of the guidelines, and it is a definition. This means that the sentence actually means:

• For example, a review of a local harvest festival in a local newspaper or a book review in a newsletter by a city's library would not qualify as an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub.

...which is nonsensical. A local newspaper is certainly capable of writing "an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation" of the local event that contains "a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub". That's SIGCOV, per the definition in this guideline.

What the local newspaper can't do is provide evidence that anyone outside the immediate area paid any attention to it.

Similarly, there is nothing about "a book review in a newsletter by a city's library" that prevents that city library from providing a book review that is every bit as detailed, and every bit as useful for writing a good Wikipedia article, as any other book review. (Also, this isn't NBOOKS, so why were book reviews being mentioned at all?)

I think these examples are unnecessary, so I have removed the sentence rather than fixing it.

Separately, I notice that the ===Product reviews=== section also says that sources must meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which is wrong. Does anyone know what's actually meant by that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking? It seems to mean that reviews of a product must be independent of the company and provide significant coverage of the product to be acceptable for sourcing. "Primary criteria" are the ORG analog of GNG, but hopefully a bit more stringent. So, perhaps it goes without saying, reviews generated by or affiliated with the company (producing the product) are unacceptable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The text says: "Like any other source, reviews must meet the primary criteria".

The primary criteria are: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

It seems to be saying that each source has to be notable. Are you saying that the intended meaning is that a review must be reliable, secondary, and independent? (A single source can't be "multiple".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a review must be reliable, secondary, and independent, along with being significant coverage of the reviewed product. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

(Sources must contain significant coverage; they should not be significant coverage.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

That does appear to be the intended meaning, but WhatamIdoing also appears to be right about what it actually is saying... Which is nonsensical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure how this is nonsense. It is in agreement with GNG except the guidance here is explicitly intended to be more stringent. So, what do you mean by nonsense? And if there are going to be changes I believe an RFC is required. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Because WhatamIdoing is right that the way its currently written means that reviews must actually be notable "the primary criteria" is not applied to sources its applied to topics so a review meeting the primary criteria is nonsensical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously the sentence refers to the Primary Criteria section listing what the four primary criteria are, which each contributory source is required to meet. The sentence you quote is descriptive of the expected sourcing for an article, while SIRS is the list of criteria each of the multiple sources must meet to achieve it. JoelleJay (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think I understand what you and WhatamIdoing are saying. But it seems this is being misread. Meeting the primary criteria means that reviews must fulfill the criteria of any other reliable source: reliable, secondary, independent, and significant coverage. That is the purpose of "meeting the primary criteria". Not the that reviews themselves must be notable. In any case, if WhatamIdoing or you want to do a small rewrite for clarity, I don't have a problem with that. If they are getting confused by this, then it is likely that other editors are also getting confused. ---17:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs)

In which case, it should say something like "Like any other source, reviews must meet

WP:SIRS" (or "must be independent secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject") instead of "Like any other source, reviews must meet the primary criteria". WhatamIdoing (talk

) 14:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. that new phrasing seems to work. Or how about "Like any other source, reviews must fulfill the

WP:SIRS." In other words, I think we should somehow replace the word "meet." ---Steve Quinn (talk

) 16:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You make some good points and summarize unusable sources really well, along with why they are not useable. However, I believe this guideline does address how inclusion in limited interest publications is inadequate. See

WP:ORGIND where trade publications are discussed. Also, ORGIND provides an in-depth discussion in independent and dependent sources. And regional and local coverage is addressed in WP:AUD. ---Steve Quinn (talk

) 00:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

in-depth coverage in general interest broadly circulated items like New York Times or Los Angeles Times acting in non-local reporting capacity is necessary and this is what

WP:AUD is about. I'm curious what your thoughts are on the discussion regarding AUD above. JoelleJay (talk

) 02:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

JolleJay, thanks for asking. I will have to get back to you. I have to step away from Wikipedia for bit. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/145507250702400313 This is an example of something I would say is moderate/possibly significant coverage, but I would serious question the weight it carries in establishing notability for

WP:AUD is narrow. That article would be a fantastic source for building contents, but I don't believe it should be used to establish notability for some airplane engine parts manufacturer vast majority of people have never heard of. Graywalls (talk

) 07:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: regarding the article you linked to. I agree that it probably would not be a good source for establishing notability for Harm Reduction International. There is some coverage of this organization, but it is mostly focused on the debates surrounding harm reduction. I do think it is a good study and is probably useful for harm reduction in general. Regarding your second hypothetical source, it sounds like that would be significant coverage for an airplane parts manufacturer, even if the vast majority of people never heard of the company.

As you seem to know, sourcing is what determines whether or not a topic can have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. So, perhaps I am misunderstanding your point on the second hypothetical source. If it can be established that there is some sort of affiliation between the aerospace scholarly journal and the company then that would, of course, be a problem. But that would have to be determined somehow. Regarding JoelleJay's comment, are you looking to propose a change in the wording of AUD? Also, Graywalls, what changes are you proposing? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NEVERHEARDOFIT, although officially discouraged, is not an uncommon sentiment among editors. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 23:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:NCORP because companies, products and organizations articles are especially susceptible to promotional articles. So, a tweak to guidelines that ask the proponents of "keep" in AfD or AfC authors to list 2-3 sources for notability qualification would be a reasonable guideline addition. This helps alleviate the need of editors to have to expend time combing through dozen of dozens of source. Frustrating editors by causing them to go through huge number of sources appear to be public relations editing tactic to fend off deletion. With articles that fall under NCORP, a lot of time is wasted in having to "disprove" notability. Graywalls (talk

) 12:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the regular editors of this guideline have ever considered peer-reviewed academic journals to be relevant to AUD. The only time I've seen editors claim that peer-reviewed academic journal articles are not appropriate sources for demonstrating notability has been with journals focused on women's studies and non-white ethnic studies, in discussions about deleting biographies of women and people of color, generally in the form of "She's not notable, because only academics who support feminism care about her". (The general response to such comments is to tell those editors that they're wrong.)

Here at this guideline, we have considered some trade magazines to be "limited interest and circulation", but Aviation Week & Space Technology has been named as a specific example of a trade magazine that is neither limited interest (the aviation industry has >600K workers in the US alone; that means the US aviation industry is larger than about 30 whole countries, and also bigger than the population of the US state of Wyoming) nor limited circulation (75,000 readers per issue, more than half of whom are paid subscribers). WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing For that fictional example what I had in mind was something like https://www.aiaa.org/publications/journals Journal of Aircraft. The more specialized we get into something, the greater the details we can find on something. Even if the publication is peer reviewed, it doesn't mean everything talked about in depth in that journal is notable, for example, using a two page coverage in that journal as a basis of establishing NCORP to create an article on the obscure manufacturer of aircraft engine components. Graywalls (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Why should we mind having an article about a manufacturer that academics thought was worth spending two pages in a peer-reviewed journal article to talk about? The fact that it's "obscure" only means that editors have

WP:NEVERHEARDOFIT. Being something that most editors have never heard of is not a reason to reject it. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 21:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The more specialized the published material, the more likely they're to detail into things of relevance in specific topics. Back then, a bunch of characters had pages here so much that a phrase

Pokemon Test was coined, yet if you look in the 500+ page Super Extra Deluxe Essential Handbook (Pokémon) The Need-To-Know Stats and Facts on Over 875 Characters by Scholastic, there's a good chance SIGCOV could be established on each of the character if AUD was not taken into account. For characters whose notability has already been established, then that book would be good for fleshing out the contents, but as I see it, that book is way too narrowly focused for establishing notability. When you look in things that focus on specific field or subject (Harm Reduction Journal talking about companies that hand out paraphernalia or manufacture heroin pipes) or (Journal of Aircraft devoting two pages in one of its issues about aircraft turbine blade material manufacturer) I don't think it means much in sense of notability. Graywalls (talk

) 08:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that AUD is relevant in the example you give; I think that the relevant point is at the top of WP:N: Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Editors decided to merge most Pokémon characters into a single article. Editors could equally – voluntarily – decide to merge articles about companies involved in harm reduction, or aircraft parts manufacturers.

The fact is that editors generally do not treat academic sources as having "limited interest". You can decide that editors are wrong about this, but the fact is that they don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: That is not what "generally notable" means in that context... It means that it will generally be notable not that it has to be generally notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Horse Eye Black. It is not about a vast general audience. It is an appraisal of the sources. Multiple reliable sources are still required. However, in this instance, a source that reaches an audience from the regional to the international is stipulated. So, there seems to be no need to add to this guideline that 2-3 such sources for notability qualification are needed or required. If NCORP's wording seems vague, other than stipulating one type of source, that is probably on purpose. The vagueness means other sources will have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. There is nothing new about that. If you want to build in a requirement that stipulates 2-3 sources must have an audience ranging from the regional to the international, then I think you need an RFC for that. This is not something that a very small group of editors could do on their own, in case that is what you were thinking. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I am glad I wrote that last paragraph because it has dawned on me that Graywalls proposal might be a good idea. It is an onerous task to sift through a dozen, 24, or 40 sources to determine the wheat from the chaff in these types of articles. They can be a magnet for promotional sourcing. So, I think adding to changing the guideline to have a requirement that stipulates 2-3 sources must have an audience ranging from the regional to the international could be helpful for keeping out topics (companies, products, etc.) that only have promotional coverage. I'm for anything that helps with that. So, perhaps those who are reading this could propose wording for an RFC. Or maybe someone sees a drawback that I have not considered. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, personally, I would like to drop "regional" coverage from this stipulation. I think that is too vague. "Province" and "state' seem to be more clearly defined. And we know what "national" and "international" mean. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn, I think that's a bad idea, primarily because not all countries are organized like the US is. For example, the UK and France have neither "provinces" nor "states", so removing that means that there is no intermediate step between "local" and "national". For another example, not all of Canada's "provinces" are actually provinces.

Even within the US, one hardly wants to say that a "regional" source covering the multi-state region of the Pacific Northwest is somehow worse than a source covering just one state within that region, or – from the other sensible interpretation of "regional" (namely, a region smaller than a state/province) – that a source covering Southern California (population: 23 million people) is worse than a source covering any of the 47(!) US states smaller than that region. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

OK thanks. Yes, I was coming from a U.S.-centric view and I wasn't thinking of region in the way you describe. This is why it is good to discuss these ideas. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

RFC wording

Hopefully I am not jumping the gun here. In any case, here is an idea:

Proposal 1:

Option 1. Change WP:AUD to ...at least two to three regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international sources are necessary.

Option 2. Drop "regional" and change WP:AUD to ...at least two to three statewide, provincial, national, or international sources are necessary.

Option 3. Oppose any changes to the wording.

---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe you're jumping the gun. "at least 2-3" fundamentally doesn't make sense. In the eyes of those advocating for article existence for advocacy or promotional reasons, that means "have two and you're good". That is currently the way I see it with how

WP:AUD and requirements are met; and a lot of argument over the definition of "regional" "national" and arguing to qualify the article under less stringent SNG. I've had one example in which the advocate wanted to re-qualify a page as software because it was not meeting NCORP and the company's product was a software as a service or something along that line. Advocates asserting NCORP shouldn't apply to record labels, naming "NMUSIC #5" is a routine occurrence at AfD. Graywalls (talk

) 15:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

OK thanks. I think you should write what you want to have added or changed here, because I am not clear about that, except what doesn't seem to work. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help work out a proposal, but I'd need to know more about what you mean by topics (companies, products, etc.) that only have promotional coverage. What exactly is "promotional coverage"? Why should Wikipedia exclude topics that independent reliable sources have considered worth covering in a way that you call "promotional"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

With due respect, I am not going to participate in a conversation that begins with asking, Why should Wikipedia exclude topics that independent reliable sources have considered worth covering in a way that you call "promotional"? To me, equating a promotional source with an independent reliable source is at the least incorrect. So, this sounds like an opening for a contentious debate that occurs at AfDs. If there is no agreement on what a promotional source looks like to begin with then I cannot engage in the conversation. If someone else wants to answer your question then that is fine with me. Sorry. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

One of the problems that AFD and NPP have is that there is no agreement on what a promotional source looks like to begin with. As a result, Editor 1 says "Here's 500-word article in a luxury travel magazine, which is an independent source", and Editor 2 says "Bleah, that's obviously paid advertising, because they only say positive things about it".

Consequently, I have to ask: What exactly is promotional coverage? How are editors supposed to know whether a given source is promotional? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Good question. I'm glad you asked it and I'm sorry you got the response you got (above).

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I said promotional reasons, meaning editing for promotional or search visibility purposes. Not that sources being "promotional". WP:AUD was implemented into companies and organizations due to constant issues caused by PR editing. Currently, NORG says "at least one" must be regional/international. The updated wording would ideally clarify the definition of regional/international in order to reduce the wiggle room given to promotional editors. I think something like "absolutely minimum of 2, however under xxx circumstances, 3 is to be expected... to meet

WP:AUD could reduce the proliferation of local business listings consisting of one routine event coverage that is rather extensive in NYT or local statewide paper; and stuffed full of zagat, eater and like as notability establishing sources. Most significant promotional editing in my experience has been small to medium companies and organizations that are currently in business, and increasingly, various non-profit organizations. Graywalls (talk

) 12:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls, I wonder why you believe that AUD was implemented "due to constant issues caused by PR editing". I wrote AUD in 2008, and you started editing in 2018, so I assume you have no first-hand information about AUD's creation. The discussion leading to its creation said nothing at all about PR editing. Is there a false rumor going around about AUD's purpose?

The purpose of AUD is not to prevent self-promotion. That might be a side effect, but it is not the intended purpose. The purpose is to align with the core purpose of notability (Did "the world at large" pay enough attention to this subject that we can write a proper encyclopedia article?) by providing a somewhat more level playing field for businesses. The real world provides us with an unequal playing field, in which a small-town restaurant has basically a 100% chance of getting in the local newspaper each year, but a big-city restaurant has maybe a 2% chance of getting in the local newspaper. AUD balances that a bit, by saying that it's not enough for a local business to be mentioned in their own local newspaper; they have to get attention from something that's closer to "the world at large", or at least the adjacent media market.

(Also, as a side note, we don't really have a problem with self-promotion by small-town businesses these days.)

On the more immediate point, believing that you magically know what someone else's reasons for an edit are is a bad habit of thought for editors to indulge in. We can usually identify the effect of an edit (e.g., "This edit added a bunch of Wikipedia:Wikipuffery" or "This edit copied and pasted text from their website"), but editors cannot be expected to know whether that was actually added for promotional reasons, or because that's the style the editor is accustomed to (Everything Is Awesome, and if you're talking about a Silicon Valley business, it's also amazing), or for some other reason. We shouldn't be putting too much effort into guessing why editors made an edit. We should be primarily concerned about what the result is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't look deep into the history of WP:AUD. But the paragraph in

assume good faith, the assumption doesn't need to continue all the way until proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Several things combined together creates reasonable cause to suspect promotional or COI editing. Implementing a firm requirement to require two or more broad audience (what is "broad" could be defined more strictly to avoid ambiguous interpretations) specifically to people, organizations and products articles won't prevent but help reduce the amount of creation of articles about run of the mill things in the subject area most vulnerable to promotional editing. Yes, that includes record labels. Graywalls (talk

) 23:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, some of the newer bits of this guideline display some paranoia about normal marketing efforts. We should probably remove them; it's really unprofessional and rather silly.

I don't think that this guideline covers "the subject area most vulnerable to promotional editing". Last year, I heard that the main source of pressure was all films and music (e.g., Bollywood actors). Next year, which is an election year in the US, it'll doubtless be political candidates.

I looked through Special:RecentChanges for what newcomers are putting into the Draft: namespace. Here's the list: two BLPs whose title match the username, sports, BLP, a weather event, a military rank, BLP, music, another BLP, a mayor (dead), a telephone number, an athlete, an actor, a law enforcement officer (dead), another BLP, book, a magazine, four more BLPs, a video game sub-feature, a BLP, a horse breed, another BLP (and then I gave up). That's about two dozen consecutive articles. Most of them are basically terrible. Note the absence any articles about businesses or organizations. I conclude from this that this is not the area that's getting the most promotional effort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

What you're calling paranoia, I call it reasonable concerns about plausible misuse of encyclopedia for promotional purposes. Dawing conclusion from looking at a snap shot from RC is shallow in my opinion. Like observing the road for a day, the calling it road accidents are not much of a cocern saying you didn't see any occur during your observation period.Graywalls (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals is unnecessary and displays fear. That might be some editors' guess about why these rules exist, but we don't need to tell every would-be spammer that we think they are a credible threat to Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I went through RecentChanges again. This time, there was one business in the most recent 25 articles created in the Draft: space by inexperienced editors. Try it yourself. I get similar results through Special:RandomPage/Draft. There is a lot of garbage left there, but the draft space is mostly about individuals, not businesses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Option 4: follow

@A. B., the fundamental goal behind notability is not solely ensuring we have enough reliable information to publish a decent article; it is also ensuring that it's a subject that "the world at large" has paid some attention to. Attention from your next-door neighbor is not the same as attention from the world at large.

Most other subjects don't have the same problem, because most subjects (athletes, authors, video games, laws, medicine...) aren't local subjects. Among the inherently local subjects, I find that many of them have very similar rules about excluding local coverage:

• Small-town newspapers cover their small-town politicians, but Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges is very effective at discouraging the creation of articles about them. The GNG standard is interpreted as being very high for small-town elected officials – if you watch AFD, in practice, they have AUD without writing it down.
• Small-town newspapers in the US cover local amateur athletes, especially through "Student Athlete of the Week" stories, but
  WP:YOUNGATH
  is basically AUD for teenaged athletes.
• Geographical features are handled by Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), and generally get coverage outside the immediate local area (e.g., by the United States Geological Survey or travel guides) anyway.

As a result, I don't think that this guideline is really imposing higher requirements than other subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

To add a data point, I believe that AUD does in fact impose a higher requirement for businesses than for (most) other subjects, and whether or not this was the initial intention, it has certainly been the effect of the interaction between AUD and

WP:SIRS

. (I also believe that this effect has been a net positive in facilitating resistance to on-wiki promotional editing.) One piece of evidence I would offer, that AUD is in fact a stricter requirement than generally applies elswehere, is that proposals to expand AUD to other areas have generally been received negatively (as being unnecessarily restrictive) more than they have been seen as "what we do on these topics anyway".

Also, philosophically, I would point out that AUD does not in fact offer a very good approximation of what "the world at large" pays attention to, at least in its expectations for an encyclopaedia. It does a rather good job of approximating what a newspaper reader of 2008 was likely to pay attention to, but the underlying assumptions (i) that we can model universality of interest on physical geography and (ii) that the things more people want to read about in current events coverage are more important are both, I think, now questionable. For example, AUD doesn't really address books or scholarly articles as sources - I for one would argue that source quality is more likely to be associated with encyclopaedic importance than a mass audience, especially in a day when celebrity and sports coverage on a global scale reaches far more people than the topics that form the main body of encyclopaedic knowledge (celebrities and athletes forming a relatively small part of the thought-world an encyclopaedia aims to document for its readers).

So I for one would oppose the extension of AUD to the rest of Notability discussions, primarily on these "philosophical" grounds. Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Current events coverage is very important to our readers. (So are business articles.) I think we sometimes get the idea that Wikipedia is supposed to be serius bizniss, and to maintain that purity, we should only grudgingly permit articles about subjects that aren't part of a liberal arts curriculum, but often, what the readers want has more to do with basic background information on the business they'll be cold-calling soon, and an update on where that hurricane is.

In terms of AUD and books or scholarly article, have you ever seen anyone claim that a book or scholarly article is a purely local publication? I haven't, though I could imagine someone objecting to a book published by the local historical club (though that would normally fail on

WP:SELFPUB grounds anyway), or perhaps having a POV pusher claim that the Journal of Feminism was a "narrow interest". Therefore I doubt that AUD is preventing editors from using such sources to claim notability. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 21:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the reason AUD isn't preventing editors from using such sources to claim notability is that in the areas where people would be inclined to argue that a highly-specialized source - including a book or an academic article - doesn't contribute to the Notability of a topic fall into topics, like the social sciences or medicine, where AUD clearly doesn't apply, so they don't bother making the argument. But I have certainly seen editors argue that a feminist journal was too narrow in its POV or that a book was of excessively niche interest to count towards WP:N, when what they really meant to say IMO is simply that

they don't like the topic

of the article up for deletion. But as I say, I haven't seen such editors invoking AUD, not have I noticed such arguments meeting with appreciable success.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that "current events coverage" isn't of interest to our readers. I have helped maintain articles about celebrities and social media figures, and the single biggest improvement I would ask of WP is a qualitative leap in the coverage of women's footy players to catch up with what is happening in the game and in its mediasphere. But I do think that an encyclopaedia has to be defined somewhat by what is of enduring interest, so covering topics differently from the way, say, print newspapers cover them - leaning into the ways encyclopaediass have been organized historically while taking full advantage of the affordances of hypertext and the lack of page limits - makes much more sense than, say, the ITN approach or, in the extreme case, aggregating the sum of human knowledge into the form, "here is what happened on July 2, 2023". And I personally feel that our coverage of businesses needs to be improved - corporate history and critical analysis (especially for defunct companies) is one of the areas where I feel enwiki is lagging far behind its sources, probably because such articles are challenging to write and the incentives to do so are much weaker than when contributing to, say, hit pieces on political opponents or enthusiastic reception of the work of beloved musicians. But I don't think that emulating the contents of the websites that have continued - or partially replaced - the role of broadsheet newspapers is the way to build an encyclopaedia, and that model is precisely what AUD has always seemed to me to imply. Newimpartial (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Newimpartial How do you feel about NEXT Harm Reduction ? It's got three peer reviewed journals. Clinical research often involves working with local clinic and organizations but does being talked about in specialized journals targeted towards researchers, Phds and med students count towards NCORP? As I see it, those are good reliable sources, but do not pierce through AUD requirements. This is an example of something arranged with reliable sources, but might not be notable. The way I see it, a company like this needs significant coverage in general interest media (beyond Boston based paper covering about Boston stuff) to establish national notability and once the notability has been established, reliable sources can be used to fill contents. Graywalls (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

How do I feel about it? I feel that it is a decent encyclopaedia article, reasonably sourced. So I would therefore support an interptetation of NCORP that lets it pass, rather than one that insists that it fail. Any topic that has been covered in peer-reviewed sources like these has IMO a more credible claim to encyclopaedic significance than a topic that isn't, but instead turns out to be, say an equivalent Boston social agency covered in a couple of New York dailies.

And I suppose that demonstrates how I actually feel about AUD: more of an obstacle to encyclopaedic writing (at least when it comes to non-profit orgs that actually do something in the real world) than it is a useful predictor of the encyclopaedic interest of a topic. I'd rather see 10 articles about agencies like these with peer-reviewed sources than ten (or even one) about a restaurant in Boston that had New York reviews - although in the real world, there is no reason to choose between those two particular content options. Newimpartial (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding academic journals, please see https://library.elmhurst.edu/credibility written for a specialized, academic audience credibility and information quality is rated very high but this is strongly suggestive of having a narrow audience. I suggest for path forward, word things to differentiate the meaning of information credibility vs notability building. In the first decade of millennium, social entrepreneurship wasn't a thing. It's common now, and more such enterprises will be forming and many likely as non-profits. This is relevant, because it creates SNG based leakage pathway which can cause non-profit incorporated businesses to slip through

WP:NONPROFIT pathway and academic journal based notability building attempts. By building an expectation of explicitly naming 2-3 sources to pin down articles for GNG/NCORP purpose, it reduces the effective of reference bludgeoning editors with the hope of overwhelming them with number of sources and discouraging them from being able to come to DELETE !vote without exhaustive review of sources. Graywalls (talk

) 10:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

All academic journals have a specialized academic audience and yet they are our highest level of sourcing. How do you square that basic tenet of wikipedia with your current argument? I'd note that you're coming off a bit paranoid and your desire to harm editors who you claim but can't prove are editing promotionally is a hard pass for me on civility grounds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, Graywalls, if you are making a general (not NCORP-specific) point that academic articles/journals with a "narrow audience" are not an indicator of the encyclopaedic significance of the topics they discuss, I simply disagree. I recognize that some editors prefer a "muscular" reading of AUD as a tool to undercut Notability for topics they feel are not of encyclopaedic interest, but where this is motivated by assuptions about encyclopaedicity that other editors don't share, I expect it to be difficult to gather support for such "muscular" readings. Newimpartial (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, an organization that effectively operates throughout an entire country isn't really the target for AUD. AUD's trying to stop articles on WhatamIdoing's Gas Station, not on first-of-a-kind organizations that operate nationally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

A discussion has been opened regarding the deletion of 82 airline destination-list articles that can be seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Midwest destinations FOARP (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

At a recent AfD, Visviva made a [good comment I'd describe as "WP:NOTMONUMENT":

• "I get the desire to purge content that comes from seemingly impure origins, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, not a monument to our personal discernment or high standards."

If an editor with a COI starts a promotional article, then just cut it back to what

We refer frequently to

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

Let's not forget

• Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a rather useless statement, perhaps ironic, naive, or self-defeating. "We are here to build an encyclopedia" is nothing but making editorial judgements about what are encyclopedic subjects and what are proper sources for such subjects. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that A. B. is thinking about this scenario:

• Skylar Selfpromoter begins an article on Skylar's Own Business.
• The original version of the article is truly terrible – crammed beginning to end with puffery, peacocking, marketing jargon, and other sins against the encyclopedia.
• Editors doing a
  WP:BEFORE
  search are surprised to discover that the subject is notable.

Editors now have a choice:

1. Keep the article (albeit in a much different form).
2. Delete the article.

Back in the day, when we were new editors, I believe the usual approach was to quickly stubbify the article ("Skylar's Own Business is a sports memorabilia business in Placeville.^[1][2][3]"), and move on. Getting an article wasn't really a "reward"; it was just something that happened if someone had half an hour free and a couple of sources at hand.

Now, I feel like some editors are treating a Wikipedia article as a prize to be earned through not just sources, but also personal good conduct. It's more of a

WP:HONEYPOT for some autistic people; I think it is also a honeypot for people who think they are smarter than the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 15:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The other option is to draftify. S0091 (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean "to delete after a six-month delay"? The Draft: namespace is where articles go to die per m:Research:Wikipedia article creation and m:Research:AfC processes and productivity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Promotional articles are most likely to happen on currently existing people, companies, organizations and events. I hate to say there are certain patterns of promotional/PR editing where

WP:BEFORE. I support for something that puts the burden to establish notability with rock solid sources if the article's creation is questioned.Graywalls (talk

) 01:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Uh, that warning on my user page is about a relatively recent phenomena of scumbags scamming individuals or companies by impersonating Wikipedia administrators or well known editors and "guaranteeing" that they can "save" an article or get one "published" on Wikipedia. It really doesn't have anything to do with the common, general COI editing problem. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Could we clarify which Wiki guideline/ policy we're talking about here? Note the color of

Sorry, North8000, I was being facetious with "WP:NOTMONUMENT". It's not a real essay or guideline. At least, not yet.

We have various essays used in these AfDs sometimes in an authoritative way. "WP:"+CAPITAL LETTERS seems to carry special weight around here, sometimes a little too much. For instance,

WP:SERIESA

is frequently cited in AfDs as a reason to delete an article about a company; it was written by a total of 2 editors without any community input I could find.

I saw the quote by Visviva (at the start of this topic) and thought, "that should anchor a guideline or at least an essay". It's a reminder of what we're here for. Call it "WP:NOTMONUMENT" and start using it in AfDs as another WP:pseudo-cudgel.

Maybe I'll write something up, maybe I won't. My point today is to remember why we're here. It's not to punish promotional writers (even if we want to).

I was away for a number of years. When I returned, I found the environment at company-related AfDs startling to say the least.

I made an argument for retaining the Accel-KKR article, and a frequent corporate deletion editor insinuated I was therefore a paid editor. I found myself compiling a page of evidence to show that I had some experience with the paid editing issue.

Needless to say, I was gobsmacked by the accusation and I've since been paying close attention to what I see as a worrying trend at company-related AfDs as well the WP space to focus on the motivations of article creators more than the actual article subjects.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with you...which I think involves several topics. The ncorp standard is deliberately (and I think rightly so) a little tougher (even for GNG) but, if that standard is fully met, the article should not be deleted on wp:notability grounds, even if there are lots of additional bad sources. The strong feeling about undeclared paid editing can sometimes boil over / jump the tracks into too much hostility against DECLARED paid editors or into "guilty until proven innocent" accusations of others. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's really quite different. Some editors seem invested in improving (to their way of thinking) Wikipedia by removing as much verifiable content from it as they can. To read their comments, it feels like an epic battle between the forces of good and evil, rather than someone just saying "Hey, I had to look up this large business for work, and maybe posting some of this will save someone else some time later". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

BTW I try to never use links to policies/guidelines/essays in the common way of being a substitute for actually making/supporting a point. It's sort of vague claim that the linked item is "on your side" or to make an accusation without actually saying how that is the case. Which I consider to be a BS tactic to pull on someone. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• I generally agree with the OP here: we approach business articles from an anti-business slant, assuming that any coverage is the result of PR (unless it's bad coverage...). This is of course very often entirely warranted as an approach, especially on things like crypto (or any BS "woo" tech-related article). I've saw this with
  WP:CORP even at the AFD stage (and probably at the AFC stage) its just no-one wanted to do the work of turning a COI article into a real one. FOARP (talk
  ) 09:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

As usual, judgement calls get made taking other factors into consideration. But there a big one that you either left off or else considered to be presumed which is that that one reference is the only notability-candidate reference for the article, and that a search effort yielded nothing better. If that's true, IMO the described article is typically not enough. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

As per

HighKing⁺⁺

11:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@

HighKing: I think that this is area is too fuzzy to derive the general answer that you seek. One complexity is that this is a SNG but also influences GNG evaluations. And passing either the SNG or GNG is sufficient. So step one you'd need to say which "route in" are you discussing? If it's the SNG route, then you'd be talking about the SNG specifics. If it's GNG then I think it would be even fuzzier because the influence of the SNG on GNG is acknowledged but not specifically defined. Finally, you did give a particular example (albeit removed from the actual situation) and an answer on a specific example is not going to be a general answer. At first glance the given example looks very weak on coverage compliance and so it also would not be representative of more typical edge cases. Sincerely, North8000 (talk

) 15:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

NCORP describes what sourcing on orgs is sufficient for meeting SIGCOV, independence, secondariness, and reliability, each of which directly affects what counts toward GNG. There is no "NCORP or GNG". JoelleJay (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree but such is not central to this discussion. North8000 (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

GNG requires a source be significant, secondary, independent, and reliable to count towards GNG, and that there be multiple of these sources to meet GNG, which in turn presumes notability. N also states In some topic areas, subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) have been written to help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written. [...] SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability. This guidance is at the level of determining notability rather than presuming it, but uses terms straight from GNG. NCORP does not offer an alternative method of meeting or presuming notability. Instead, it explains what constitutes significant, independent, secondary, and reliable coverage of an org. This is functionally equivalent to describing what counts toward GNG for an org. JoelleJay (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: My point was a straightforward structural one, taken from the top of the core guideline: "....It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right....." with ncorp being one of those. North8000 (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what point you're making. Some SNGs add or remove conditions for notability, hence the *or* statement. NCORP simply tells us how to apply GNG, it doesn't add or remove any conditions. We sometimes/often see editors trying to argue at NCORP-related AfDs that "It meets GNG but I don't think it meets NCORP" which is nonsensical. Unless you're saying we can ignore NCORP guidelines for interpreting/applying GNG for companies/organizations and simply come up with whatever interpretation we like ourselves? Which is also nonsensical seeing as how the community has created NCORP guidelines and these guidelines represent community consensus in this topic area.

HighKing⁺⁺

14:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@

HighKing: It's a sidebar that I don't think it's worth carrying on further. Other than the "simply", I agree with everything that you just wrote. My point is that structurally NCORP exists as a path in in addition to it calibrating GNG. And yes I know that the SNG path is also very GNG-like. Sincerely, North8000 (talk

) 17:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

There isn't any community consensus, as far as I am aware, that SIGCOV imposes a minimum level of "significance" for each source aside from the fact that it must be more than a trivial mention in each case. The opening line of GNG, setting the threshold to be presumed Notable as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, clearly assesses "significant coverage" in independent sources taken together, and this is clarified further under "sources": There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. So GNG does not require multiple sources, nor does it require a level of depth per source (above "trivial mentions", which are excluded).

Meanwhile, SIRS specifies that Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability, which is not true of GNG. Attempts to interpret NORG as though it followed the same procedure as GNG don't seem to be effectively grounded in the actual language of either guideline (but seem to align with the predisposition of certain editors towards universalistic rather than particularistic decision rules for Notability). Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

At NCORP AfD there is a community consensus amongst most regular participants at NCORP-related AfDs. Your reading of "no fixed number of sources" as to not requiring "multiple sources" is not supported by the text of GNG/NCORP. You acknowledge the opening line of GNG which requires "reliable sources" (plural). So minimum of 2. NCORP provides guidance on what is regarded as "significant" coverage for corporations - it doesn't contradict GNG. Your interpretation that NCORP adds requirements is just a failure to see NCORP as additional clarification and guidance which is required due to this specific topic area. You can always make a case at an AfD about content you believe is "significant" and not captured by NCORP. Also, SIRS clarifies that we don't aggregate sources or evaluate sources in aggregate - is this not also the same as evaluating sources under GNG?

HighKing⁺⁺

12:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

No, HighKing; I see no consensus at AfD that the "multiple sources" provision at the head of GNG takes precedence over the later qualifier that There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. If multiple sources are "generally expected" , they are not universally required, and what is more, GNG seems quite clear that significance is to be assessed in aggregate, and not per source, so long as a source is not limited to "trivial coverage". Editors have sought to amend GNG to establish a bright line requirement of two RS, or to insist on a minimum depth or audience requirement for each source, but these proposals have been unsuccessful - this suggests that they are not supported by community consensus.

The consensus amongst most regular participants at NCORP-related AfDs that

WP:SIRS applies to corporations reflects the broader community consensus and applies within the domain of NCORP. NCORP does indeed provide guidance on what is regarded as "significant" coverage for corporations, and it does so by placing requirements (SIRS, AUD) that do not apply in other domains. If there is a local consensus at NCORP-related AfDs that what they are "actually doing" is precisely the same as the way GNG applies outside NCORP, that would be a LOCALCONSENSUS that is quite inapplicable to AfDs outside of NCORP. I strongly suspect that some non-NCORP AdD somewhere has been resolved by appeal to SIRS or AUD, but that would be an instance of sloppiness and not a reflection of the site-wide consensus embedded in WP:N. Newimpartial (talk

) 13:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course that doesn't ever count toward NCORP. It wouldn't make any sense if some trivial bit of independent commentary tacked on to an in-depth interview could elevate the whole source to satisfying ORGCRIT despite all the actual coverage itself being non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm that other editor, and I think HighKing is either misunderstanding or misstating my position. Assume:

• an article written by a journalist in a reputable publication
• the journalist has obtained many or most of the facts from the article subject
• the article is not an interview nor republishing a press release, or any of the other examples given under dependent coverage in SIRS
• the article includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

What is the basis in the relevant policies for saying that nothing but the portion of the article attributable to the unaffiliated source can be counted for notability?

Notice that SIRS says "includes". It doesn't say "comprises" or "consists of". The rationale proposed above simply doesn't account for that language.

@JoelleJay's position is a straw man; the article I described was not an interview but a full article that included analysis by the journalist and opinion an unaffiliated source. And this interpretation has been applied to more substantive articles than that one. Oblivy (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Oblivy: I think that we were treating is as a generic question rather that weighing in on a particular debate where other particulars are considered, and no specific debated was noted. I added specific caveats with this in mind. I'm still not weighing in on the particular situation you discussed. The 4 points that noted might be useful extras to enter into consideration, but that main NCORP coverage standard is not the most important consideration, and none of your post addresses the main "depth of coverage" requirements of it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

ORGIND requires independence of the content for it to count toward notability, so all non-independent material within a source is automatically excluded already. Actually, from the wording of NCORP even independent analysis in a source wouldn't count toward notability if there is any non-independent material in the same source, since SIRS requires the source to Be completely independent of the article subject. A source cannot be completely independent if it has any non-independent content. So it seems rather than individual components of SIRS being additive within a single source, a failure of at least independence in some part of it pollutes the whole source. JoelleJay (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The last sentence of bullet 2 of ORGIND says independent content must include the fruits of certain journalistic work (analysis, fact-checking, etc.). It doesn't say the entire piece of content needs to meet that description, nor does it say anything about dissecting the piece to exclude information that originated from the article subject. How do you explain the use of the word include? I've asked before when editors have advanced this position but there's been a lack of engagement with the wording, in favor of conclusory statements about what it means. Oblivy (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Read this again: SIRS requires a source to Be completely 

independent of the article subject. A source that contains non-independent material by definition cannot be "completely" independent. Your interpretation is also very, very obviously at odds with the spirit of NCORP, as it would allow a source where all the SIGCOV comes from the interviewee to count towards notability if there also happens to be a trivial snippet of independent content somewhere in the source. JoelleJay (talk

) 01:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

That argument is circular, since the meaning of independent is elaborated upon in

WP:ORGIND which contains the bulleted language described above. It sidesteps the, presumably intentional, use of the word includes which according to Webster[1]

means relevantly to "take in or comprise as a part of a whole or group".

Using words like "very, very obviously" is the kind of broad, conclusory argument to which I made reference above. I would argue my reading of the wording is entirely consistent with the spirit of NCORP since it asks the question whether the journalist -- the "person with no vested interest" described in the header paragraph of ORGIND -- is exercising independent judgment in writing the article, not whether one fact or another came from the article source. Oblivy (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

My reading of NCORP is that content that fails the test for "Independent Content" cannot be used for the purposes of establishing notability. ORGIND says that only intellectually independent content (which *must* include original and independent opinion/fact checking/analysis/investigation/etc) may count towards notability. You ask specifically about the use of the word "include" - in my mind this usage acknowledges that there are different types of "independent content" - for example maybe the journalist makes a comment about the company's canteen or lunch menu - but that in order to count towards notability, somewhere in all the "independent content" there must be some content that is considered original and independent and "weighty" or "in-depth" about the company. This is also what JoelleJay means by "all non-independent material within a source is automatically excluded already". If you disagree or if you think we're missing the point of what you're saying, can you provide an small example? For example, consider the position outlined by me at the start of this section. How would you go about evaluating such a source? Would you take the content of the first three paragraphs into consideration for the purposes of establishing notability?

HighKing⁺⁺

14:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

NCORP says content in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources is trivial coverage. ORGIND says the content must not be produced by interested parties; it doesn't say the source must be independent, it says content. Interview content is definitionally primary and non-independent and therefore would not be under consideration at all in the sentence you're referencing: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That does not say "for a source to count towards notability", it says content. ORGIND also says dependent coverage includes any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources; any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly; and other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by itself, or re-printed by other people. Again, the guidance is distinguishing the content from the author/publication that published it. JoelleJay (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@JoelleJay the policy uses the term "independent source" throughout and then suddenly introduces the idea of "independent content" without defining the word "content". But it's hard to see how an article that "includes independent analysis" no matter how deep could ever qualify for notability, and that would render the last sentence of the 2nd bullet irrelevant.

As for the dependent coverage bullets, assume there's no press release but a telephone interview or a series of emails with an article subject. Does that bullet still apply?

@

HighKing the example you gave at the top could be a good example of non-independent content especially if the interview was simply reproduced verbatim (with a small note at the end) rather than being synthesized into an independent journalistic product. It's a relatively easy case, but I don't see a lot of people arguing about this issue in that context - usually at an AfD the interview just gets denounced and excluded from people's consideration. If the journalist spent the last paragraph debunking misstatements and casting doubt over the interviewee it would be a closer case. Oblivy (talk

) 00:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

HighKing⁺⁺

12:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple meanings for the word content. Sometimes it refers to entire articles on websites, entire TV programs or movies, etc. Other times it refers to things within those works and not the work as a whole. My point was that it's not clear which, and especially when we consider the last sentence of the 2nd bullet of ORGIND which wouldn't make a lot of sense if it's the 2nd meaning.

And so when you use the words "content provided by the company" it's a loaded term. If a journalist writes about a subject "in-depth and in their own words" (as you say below) it's hard to imagine a complete lack of non-trivial analysis/opinion/fact-checking, etc. Of course, if an article just reproduces/paraphrases a press release, or a reproduces a passive interview, probably this isn't independent under the wording or the spirit of the rule.

Speaking of your words below, if I've somehow suggested I want to "convince the community to accept regurgitated corporate shilling and other bumpf" I apologize - I have been trying quite hard to avoid endorsing the use of such sources. But I'm not you, so I can't know what you consider corporate shilling and bumpf. Oblivy (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to understand the issue with the meaning of the word "Content" for the purposes of evaluating content against GNG/NCORP guidelines. I don't see that the evaluation changes depending on whether we are evaluating the content in an article/Website/TV Program/Movie or whatever. We require sufficient amounts of that "content", whatever type it is, to be "intellectually independent" and in-depth - beyond trivial commentary/opinion/etc. Nor do we have to "imagine" a lack of non-trivial analysis/opinion/etc - the guidelines tell us how to make an evaluation of content regardless of type. We're not looking for loopholes in order to evaluate content that originated from a related source so we remove/ignore content from a source that is not Independent Content and we evaluate whether the remainder is sufficient to meet the requirements for establishing notability. That is why you will see at some AfDs a request to identify a paragraph/section within a source that contains Independent Content. I have encountered some confusion from editors who are not aware that while any reliable source may be used to support facts or other details within a Wikipedia article, not every reliable source can be used to establish notability.

HighKing⁺⁺

14:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that the crux of the dispute is over what it means for a source to "Be completely independent".

So, think of an indisputably notable company, like Microsoft or Walmart or McDonald's or General Electric. You want to start an article, so you find some sources. You find a magazine article that say Microsoft sells software – but how, Sam Scrupulosity wonders, did the magazine obtain that information? The source must have secretly gotten that from looking at the subject's products, and that, Sam declares, means it's not "completely independent". You find a newspaper article saying that Satya Nadella is the CEO – but how, Sam asks, did the newspaper find out that this person is the CEO? The source must have secretly gotten that from a press release, and that, Sam declares, means it's not "completely independent". You find an academic journal analyzing a certain kind of tax paid by dozens of multi-national corporations – but how, Sam asks, did the researcher get the tax bills? The researcher must have gotten them from the government, which got them from the companies, and that, Sam declares, means it's not "completely independent".

Chasing sources through this sort of twisted rabbit hole is paranoid and inappropriate. It would remove the actually reliable sources (e.g., those engaged in fact checking) in favor of sources that merely make up garbage and don't care whether it's accurate. We should reject this perverse intellectual purity test, in all its forms.

If we are writing about a situation involving a real conflict of interest (e.g., you can trivially convince editors that the subject paid for that content by pointing to the words "Paid advertisement" at the top of the source; a source is writing about its owner), then that source will be inappropriate for demonstrating notability. We should also reject obvious reprints of press releases – though in that case, you need to be able to prove that it's really a copy-paste by supplying a copy of the original press release, and not merely saying that you magically know that No True Journalist would write like that. But: a source does not stop being independent just because they obtained some – or even all – of the usable (by us) information from the subject! The independent source is still evaluating the information they receive for credibility; they are still voluntarily choosing to give attention to the subject; they are still deciding what aspects of the business are worth attention. This is the role of independence in the notability process. We don't want corporate espionage. We just want ordinary news reporting.

As a side note, I point out that parsing the exact wording of most guidelines, including SIRS, is not a good idea. Most editors don't write policies and guidelines so that they'll make sense if examined under such strict scrutiny. Also, doing that is a

violation of core policy. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 22:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing thanks for this very sensible comment. Sometimes it seems editors who advocate this strict application of ORGIND think there's a platonic ideal of press coverage on companies, which doesn't rely on information from the company but is independently derived by pounding the streets, interviewing third parties, and searching the public record (but not, of course, public records authored by the company). It's unrealistic for the reasons you describe above, and is more than a bit insulting to journalists. And more importantly I don't think it serves the purpose of building a useful, verifiable, neither vastly overinclusive nor vastly underinclusive, encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

However, the wording is there and we need to grapple with it as a first step. The wording is what editors are directed to scrutinize (...not ignore, stop infringing, etc.) when the independence of a source is questioned. I don't think this particular wording is a model of clarity, but my position is not that it's clearly permitting these types of sources, but rather that it's not clearly excluding them.

In the absence of clarity of wording, we I agree we need to think about principles and the purpose of the rule. There's an exhortation at the top of every policy to use common sense (which links to

WP:Ignore All Rules

). But where I might say the purpose is to ensure notability decisions are based on ordinary news coverage rather than laundered PR, others may say it's to ensure quality, encyclopedic coverage of companies by requiring every fact showing notability to be independently derived. And I was told above, no doubt in good faith, that I was not just wrong but "very, very obviously" wrong. So appealing to purpose and common sense isn't going to fix the problem.

Perhaps emphasising purpose-driven discussion a bit more would avoid some of the accusations of ignoring policy that get thrown around with particular force in these organisational notability discussions. I'm confident there won't be a flood of garbage promo pieces surviving AfD's -- the clearer parts of the wording will deal with the edge cases -- but some less notable organizations may continue to have Wikipedia articles. I think it's worth that risk. Oblivy (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we have achieved a good shared understanding yet. I very strongly doubt that this sentence ("A source that contains non-independent material by definition cannot be "completely" independent") is a full and complete explanation of what JoelleJay really meant. For example, a plain, logical reading of this single sentence would say:

• A quotation from an employee, owner, or officer (e.g., the CEO) of a company is "non-independent material".
• A reliable source might include such a quotation.
• Therefore, any and all reliable sources containing such quotations are not "completely" independent.
• Reliable sources for NCORP purposes must be "completely" independent.
• Therefore, any and all reliable sources containing even one quotation from any non-independent person does not count towards notability.

And we all know that if you tried to get an obviously notable company deleted because the cited sources contain a quotation from a non-independent person, and therefore they aren't "completely" independent according to this one, probably hastily written, sentence, you'd be spending the next few days at

WP:POINTY

disruption.

Finding the balance in a source can be complicated. See Wikipedia:Interviews for a summary of some of the issues, but speaking generally, copying and pasting a huge proportion of a press release is not a good indication of notability, and neither is an interview that basically lets the subject say whatever they want about themselves. OTOH, quoting someone, or even copying one or two background sentences from a corporate website or from a press release, is usually not a problem (assuming the source is significantly longer than those one or two sentences!). Repeating facts (in the source's own words, not the subject's) that ultimately derived from the subject is basically never a problem. But explaining all of this in a few words, and especially explaining it in a way that will set less experienced editors on the right path in every case, even when they are strongly motivated to claim that the rules are in favor of keeping an article of doubtful notability, is difficult. These particular words apparently aren't working. Getting better words would take some work – both of the "figure out what is more accurate" type and the "stop editors who are fearful of a flood of garbage from blocking any changes" type. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

In fact, @JoelleJay said that "a failure of at least independence in some part of [a single source] pollutes the whole source." Maybe after considering the implications you lay out above they would not say so explicitly. Maybe that sits just fine with them. If so motivated they can say for themselves.

If such a conservative view is prevalent it bodes poorly for reaching consensus on a revision of the policy. We can't expect consensus on wording if we can't agree on goals. And that's before considering how to avoid giving new tools to editors who want to retain articles on orgs of doubtful real-world notability.

At the moment the pendulum on corporate deletion seems to have swung to a pretty extreme position. I've seen the uphill battle to get an article about a non-notable individual deleted (because self-promoting people get press coverage, and because of special rules around sportspeople, award winners, academics, etc.). On the other hand arguing to keep an article about a moderately notable organization that ekes out just a bit of press coverage is not only difficult but, regrettably, likely to attract disparaging remarks about the editor's experience and ability to understand and follow policy. I'm not confident the fever will break, but perhaps illuminating the positions held by the commenting editors (on both sides) will help. Oblivy (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that

HighKing⁺⁺

12:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You know that's not my actual interpretation because in the related AfD I state:

a source with significant independent analysis of the topic doesn't get disqualified just because it also contains a quote--we simply exclude the quote when evaluating ORGCRIT for that source.

My "pollution" statement was analogizing the absurdity of counting a pass on one SIRS component in one portion of a source as a pass on that component for all the other portions of the source. JoelleJay (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I really wasn't trying to mischaracterize what you said, I was just referring to your comments at this discussion. I hadn't focused on the part about excluding a single quote from an otherwise independent article (to which I say, "wow"). Oblivy (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I may be in the wrong place. I keep seeing Help Desk and Teahouse questions from people who say their boss told them to write or update an article. Is there a guideline or essay that people can show bosses and hope that the boss understands?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee see WP:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. Is that the type of advice you are looking for? S0091 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That's the one. Thanks. So we do have it. I shouldn't have capitalized, or maybe my words were different.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

See here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Nippon destinations FOARP (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Another one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Valley Historical Society Graywalls (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

(insert name here) historical society, such as Carmel Valley Historical Society and can be found in abundance in local papers, in addition to ink-on-dead tree and sometimes in scholar.google.com journals. However, I am wondering if local historical societies are notable from the point of view of NORG. Graywalls (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I think its going to be a case by case thing but *in general* I don't feel comfortable counting historical societies at a level lower than state or major city towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Horse Eye's Back I've sent it in to AfD Graywalls (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

In such cases, especially for smaller towns, it's often faster and easier to

WP:MERGE them. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 04:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)